1-J4 THE AXGLO-YEXEZUELAX BOUNDARY DISPUTE 



Courts, otlier than criminal, are constituted to settle disputes — 

 justly if possible, but to settle them ; and so this august tribunal 

 has settled this old and irritating dispute peacefully, lawfulh^ 

 and I wish I could add, justly. Contrasted, however, with any 

 other device for settlement, arbitration is the best practical mode 

 yet devised, and is cheap. Last week a statement of the expense 

 in the ca§e of the Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration was presented 

 to the House of Commons. The cost to Great Britain from 1895 

 up to last week was £65,625, or about $320,000. The cost to Vene- 

 zuela is not published, so far as I know, but is probably not less. 

 The approi)riation by Congress for the United States Commission was 

 $100,000. So that the total cost to the nations involved in a fierce 

 and hot dispute, lasting four years, conducted by peaceful means, was 

 aljout three-(iuarters of a million of dollars, equal to war expenses for 

 about one day. In the way of cost, then, arbitration is most econom- 

 ical ; and as to justice, Venezuela gets not all she desired, but she does 

 get control of the mouth of her great river, the Orinoco. Former 

 British ministries had recognized the justice of her claim to this, and 

 had proposed to cede to Venezuela this Orinoco mouth ; but since the 

 British moved forward into this tract some fifteen j^ears ago and took 

 possession b}'' establishing police stations, issuing mining and timber 

 licenses, etc., Venezuela's efforts to induce her to withdraw from the 

 Orinoco mouth have been unavailing. Nor could she drive her out. 

 By the arbitration, therefore, Venezuela, the weaker power, gets some- 

 thing which is of much value to her, which she has always jDrized, 

 which Great Britain possessed herself of and the title to which she 

 refused to arbitrate until after intervention. The very pith of the 

 award lies in the possession and control of the Orinoco mouth. That 

 Venezuela gets this is to my mind an act of justice and a triumph for 

 arbitration, which does much to reconcile to a decision which I wish 

 w^ere in all respects as just as this. 



But the European and American view of American questions is far 

 apart. As to i)rior rights resulting from discovery, occupation, etc. ; 

 as to rights based on relations with the aborigines; as to the nature, 

 extent, and effect of political control — respecting all these, America 

 and Europe are far apart. Jurists of the highest ability and integrity 

 are certain to find themselves holding irreconcihible views. All this 

 is most significant and should never be lost sight of when arbitration 

 is proposed as a mode of settlement. 



